Chicago public schools already have police officers assigned to them. NYC currently has 5,000 School Safety Agents (police offficers). How many other large cities already have police officers assigned to them?
I would think that an article written by someone called “Matt Williams in New York” would have looked into the costs for NYC. Since NYC already has police officers assigned to school safety, the additional cost to NYC would be zero.
Who else could legally ransack your home looking for whatever is listed on their warrant(s)?
Door to door gun confication efforts by various police departments and National Guard troops occured in New Orleans after hurricane Katrina. By order of Mayor Nagin and the NO Police Chief.
And yes, confiscation (or “mandatory sale to the state”) IS an option, says NY Governor Cuomo:
:eek:
Folks not wanting confiscation should put forward reasonable approaches to dealing with the problem, rather than pushing for more guns, for that way they will have a better chance of having some of their concerns addressed, rather than losing all.
How would you describe “the problem”? What is “the problem” you would like to see fixed?
A mentally defective individual chose to murder his mother. He then chose to go to a gun-free zone to murder more people. I’ve seen no reports that he held a job. I’ve seen no reports that he had close friends. I’ve seen reports that his mother was reportedly in the process of having her son committed to a psychiatric facility. Had she given up on him? Had she reached the limits of her abilities to deal with him? Had she realized that he was potentially dangerous and needed to be cared for by medical professionals? It’s obvious that her son needed psychiatric help. Why wasn’t he receiving the help that he needed? Before it was too late?
Would an armed guard have prevented some or all of the murders at the school? Armed guards have prevented or limited carnage at businesses, churches, and other targeted places.
Problem? An absurdly high gun death rate, and a country awash in guns. Look around to see how other nations have mitigated the problem.
“Reasonable” means whatever anyone wants it to mean. For some people it’s reasonable that guns have no place at all in a civil society.
As I’ve posted previously, with regard to the prevalence of guns you have two opposing solutions, either of which might work while any compromise between them won’t. If you really could eliminate all guns (problematic) that would be one solution, albeit at the price of sacrificing guns positive benefits. Or you could try not having a “weasel in the chicken coop” situation, and have more citizens be armed. We’re currently in the worst of both worlds: criminals and psychotics can arm themselves with little difficulty, while the overwhelming majority of law-abiding people don’t usually carry. We’re already at the saturation point of illegal gun use; more guns could scarcely make things worse, while it might make them better. Seriously, pro-gun people believe this is a viable solution. Every time we’ve tried trusting decent, responsible people with guns the results have been positive. The gun control faction were certain that Shall Issue was a recipe for disaster, yet it didn’t turn out that way. If more guns automatically meant more death you’d think that areas with the highest rate of legal gun ownership would have higher gun death rates, yet if anything the opposite seems to be the case.
But what about Europe and Japan you ask? Well I would posit that eliminating guns there was a result, not a cause, of their low crime and violence rates; they were generally peaceful enough that banning guns addressed the residual incidents of mass murder by psychotics. Yes, one can decry that guns should be necessary for self-defense at all; I get that. But America seems unique among industrialized nations in its high violence rate. Not just murder, crime or gun deaths alone, but violence. Americans beat, bludgeon and knife one another to death at rates vastly higher than elsewhere; on average each year the USA has more non-gun homicides than all homicides in Europe and Japan combined.
Many things in life behave counter-intuitively, where what would seem to be the obvious straightforward path in fact doesn’t work. We tried obsessively protecting our children from germs and only to see increased incidence of asthma. Similarly, restricting guns makes what gun presence remains that much more harmful. More armed citizens may seem counter-intuitive but how about giving it a try, at least as an experiment in one locale?
Ease of flow of guns makes the one locale test ineffective.
As more and more locales increase gun control it will put pressure on governments, but as far as any being an effective test, no.
Sorry, should have written “Ease of flow of guns make the one locale test ineffective, be it testing the effect of an increase in gun ownership or a decrease, for guns flow across boundaries.”
Then you’re not trying to address the problem of a mental defective chosing to murder his mother and then murder 26 others in a gun-free zone. The fact that some 50% of the U.S. own firearms (most of whom turn out to vote) and aren’t violating any laws, is the problem you want addressed. Your solution is to turn half the country either into felons or unarmed victims of criminals. 49 States now have some sort of concealed carry laws. Violent crime rates are going down. Many States have passed Castle and SYG laws with popular support of the voters. Violent crime rates are going down.
Other nation’s governments simply decree that it’s citizens can’t be trusted with firearms and then ban firearms. Gun crime deceases and violent crimes increase. I think that is a poor trade.
What law would you like to see enacted, by popular vote, that would have prevented the Newtown monster from murdering his mother?
And here we #@&*% go again . . . :mad:
Now Feinstein wants all rifles already out there that could be “bump fired” to become NFA-restricted.
Awesome. At least she is showing her cards. I hope she has plenty of co-sponsors on that legislation that turns semi auto guns into Title II firearms. Anyone who thought the Republican revolution in 1996 was something, should look forward to the 2014 mid-terms should that hot mess come up for a vote.
I think she’s slipped a bit in her old age.
I’m not sure how concealed carry laws have changed by year and I won’t assert that it had no effect at all, but since the AWB had nothing to do with crime going down, I don’t think you can pin the entire trend on concealed carry laws. I’m just as skeptical that Britain’s problems have anything to do with the lack of guns over there.
Back then, you said you wouldn’t assert that concealed carry had no effect at all.
Timothy McVeigh was his day’s “middle-aged couch-borne internet tough guy” whose last straw was some combination of Ruby Ridge, Waco, and the original Assault Weapons Ban. I’d wager that any attempt at nation-wide confiscation will spawn for more Timothy McVeigh copycats than we have federal buildings.
First off, the onus of coming up with ways to reduce gun violence is not on gun owners. Secondly, you can forget about confiscation, any new bill will have a grandfather clause. Any attempt to go door to door to seize weapons will be nothing less than catastrophic for the Democratic party and the country, for that matter.
Bruce, it is not a matter of who has what onus, but rather in taking part in the decision making process rather than having decisions made and imposed upon you without your input.
Right, and the onus of coming up with ways to reduce lung cancer isn’t on tobacco companies.
Muffin, you seem to be operating under the delusion that your side is on the brink of winning; that you have so many votes in Congress that you’re free to impose your will on gun owners and our only sensible course of action is to surrender and beg to be allowed to keep a few old bolt actions and muzzle loaders. You’re not winning. You don’t have the votes. Feinstein’s AWB will not pass in this Congress.